<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record\u2014for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n First person is unusual enough but first person plural is really weird; why does our author\/editor use “our” in this verse? \u00a0Who constitutes the “our”?<\/p>\n The logic of the verse seems to be that if a “just” person keeps the record, you can therefore know that the record is true. \u00a0What does it mean to be “just”? \u00a0What does it mean for a record to be “true”? \u00a0(Is that the same as accurate, factual, and\/or historical?) \u00a0Do you agree with the logic of the verse re the link between the just keeper and the true record?<\/p>\n Does the “for” mean that if someone does many miracles, they are “just”? \u00a0(If so, what about the idea that “miracles” [or, seeming miracles] can be done through Satan’s power?)<\/p>\n Is it really possible to be cleansed every whit from iniquity, or is this hyperbole? \u00a0If literal, is this a universal principle? \u00a0Does it simply mean that one has been baptized and then repented of any further sins? \u00a0Or is there more to it than that?<\/p>\n Note the repetition of “in the name of Jesus.” \u00a0What effect does this have on the reader?<\/p>\n Does this verse define “just” as “cleansed every whit from iniquity”?<\/p>\n Note that what Mormon is doing with this verse is setting up the story of Jesus’ visit. \u00a0And he does that by testifying of the truthfulness of the record.<\/p>\n Hartman Rector Jr.:<\/p>\n The prophet Mormon stated very plainly what I like to call the qualification for the performance of miracles. It is recorded in 3 Nephi, the eighth chapter, and the fifth verse: “And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record\u2014for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity.” So this is the qualification: we must be cleansed every whit from our iniquity. When I first read this passage of scripture, I felt to say “Hurray for repentance!” for if it were not for repentance, there would be no miracles performed. Apr 1970 GC<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2 And now it came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the *thirty and third year had passed away;<\/strong><\/p>\n Can’t tell you how much I LOVE the juxtaposition of v1 and v2: \u00a0we just heard that the man was just, a miracle worker, and completely free of iniquity, and then the very next idea is that he might have made a mistake in the reckoning of time! \u00a0Seriously, this is one of the best comments ever on the humanity, fallibility, weakness, whatever you want to call it, of disciples.<\/p>\n \u00a03 And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land. Again, note that Samuel is almost always called “the Lamanite,” despite the fact that there is no one else that we might confuse him with. \u00a0Why was this identity so important?<\/p>\n Once again, I think we have Symbolism for Dummies here: \u00a0Jesus comes into the world, you get extra light. \u00a0Jesus dies, you get extra dark. \u00a0That said, I wonder why this sign is related to his death and not his resurrection.<\/p>\n Something about the “which had been given” is interesting to me–it makes it sound as if the sign was given by Samuel, but that isn’t quite right–Samuel prophesied of a sign that would come in the future. \u00a0Not entirely sure what to make of this.<\/p>\n Notice the parallelism of “for the sign” and “for the time.” \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n See 1 Nephi 19:10-12 for Zenos’ prophecy of this event. \u00a0(Kind of weird to think that he would have prophesied of it so very long ago, and then the idea doesn’t seem to be that big a deal in BoM preaching, but then returns full force with Samuel.) \u00a0(Also weird to think about Zenos making this prophecy in the Old World for events that would only happen in the New World. \u00a0I wonder if even he, let alone the people who heard him, understood all of that.)<\/p>\n “Space” is an odd word to use to describe time. \u00a0Is this just a little awkward, or is something going on here?<\/p>\n Samuel said the signs of the Jesus’ birth would be in five years, but he didn’t give a date (at least in our record) for the signs of his death. \u00a0 What do you make of that? \u00a0How did the people know when to look? \u00a0(I realize this will be unpopular, but I think the assumption that Jesus lived for 33 years rests on very weak textual evidence; I think we need to consider whether his life span was of a different length and, no, I don’ t think the BoM solves this problem for us–that may be the entire point of v2!)<\/p>\n 4 And there began to be great doubtings and disputations among the people, notwithstanding so many signs had been given. How do you get from earnestly looking in the last verse to doubt and dispute in this verse?<\/p>\n Does this verse teach you anything universal about the roots of disputes? \u00a0(That is, are they always related to doubts?) \u00a0If so, how might this be relevant to us today?<\/p>\n What are the other signs that had been given, besides the light at Jesus’ birth? \u00a0Are the other miracles mentioned also considered signs?<\/p>\n \u00a05 And it came to pass in the *thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.<\/strong><\/p>\n This kind of incredibly specific time reference (that is, not just the year but the month and the day) is exceptionally rare in the BoM. \u00a0This is not unexpected, given that he is about to narrate such an important event, but it may give us hints as to the use of dates to signal important events in the rest of the BoM.<\/p>\n \u00a06 And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder. Compare v5: \u00a0What is the difference between a storm and a tempest?<\/p>\n Remember the story of Nephi and Lehi in prison? \u00a0That story was full of “as if”s. \u00a0(It drove me crazy, if you will recall.) \u00a0Note the “as if” in this verse.<\/p>\n Should we be reading this verse symbolically–that is, that the death of Christ in some way was as if it were about to divide the earth asunder? \u00a0If so, what would this symbolize? \u00a0(Or, given the timing, might we tie this to the atonement, Gethsemane, and not the death itself?)<\/p>\n Do we normally think of thunder as shaking the earth? \u00a0(In other words, what are we to take from that part of the description in this verse?)<\/p>\n \u00a07 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does it mean for lightning to be “sharp”?<\/p>\n Throughout these notes, I kind of casually call all of this stuff “natural phenomena.” \u00a0Does the “such as never . . .” phrase indicate to you that they did or did not think of these as “natural” events? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a0I think it would be interesting to see these disasters as a “natural” event in the sense that this is what happens to nature when the God of nature, the creator of heaven and earth, suffers and dies. \u00a0But I also think you could see these events as specifically controlled by God to impress upon these people the idea that God is in control of nature. \u00a0And there’s an interesting paradox there of a God who allows Jesus to be killed but who can control the very elements. \u00a0So I am of two minds about this.) \u00a0If the main event is a volcano (which most scholars seem to think), then they can produce lightning (something about the ash in the air), and it would likely be more impressive lightning than a normal storm. \u00a0So the “such as never” does not necessarily indicate divine intervention. \u00a0I’m still kind of chewing over whether these events are “natural” or “specific divine intervention.” \u00a0I can think of good arguments for both sides. \u00a0(It would be kind of funny if this were just a regularly scheduled volcanic eruption that just so happened to coincide with Jesus’ death, and so someone in middle management decided to leverage it by letting Sam know about it. \u00a0;) )<\/p>\n 8 And the city of Zarahemla did take fire. Is this symbolic as well as literal?<\/p>\n \u00a09 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned. \u00a010 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain. \u00a011 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. Why do you think the New World experienced these incredible physical events at this time while the Old World didn’t? \u00a0(Was this just a sign to the people, or was there more to it than that?)<\/p>\n \u00a012 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; \u00a013 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. Again, is this symbolic?<\/p>\n This verse seems to echo OT language; was that deliberate?<\/p>\n \u00a014 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate. \u00a015 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain. \u00a016 And there were some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away. Remember that Alma and Nephi met similarly unknown ends–are we supposed to be making a connection here?<\/p>\n \u00a017 And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth. I suspect “deformed” is significant–more than just a physical description of change. \u00a0It connotes “messed up.” \u00a0What is going on here? \u00a0(The death of Christ isn’t a good thing per se, obviously, but it is also part of the atonement and prelude to the resurrection, so why are the signs so “bad” here?)<\/p>\n Is it literally true that the thunder made the face of the earth deformed, or is this a little poetic license?<\/p>\n Note that “whole earth” doesn’t literally mean “whole earth” here. \u00a0(Remember that when you read about Noah’s flood.)<\/p>\n \u00a018 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land. “Rent in twain” is the same language used to describe the rending of the temple veil at the death of Jesus in the New Testament. \u00a0There, the symbolism is that the separation of God and humans is destroyed, and people now have access to the presence of God because of the atonement of Jesus Christ. \u00a0(See Mark 15:38.) Is that the same symbolism here?<\/p>\n \u00a019 And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease\u2014for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours\u2014and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land. Is the “three hours” significant? \u00a0(Mark has Jesus crucified at “the third hour,” which would have been about 9am.) \u00a0The destructions last for three hours and the darkness lasts for three days; is this related?<\/p>\n Why the note that some people thought that the time was longer, given that the narrator agrees with the three hour figure? \u00a0(Does this have anything to do with the note above about possible errors in reckoning time?) \u00a0I wonder if the point is being made that, due to the destructions, it was literally impossible for them to measure the passage of time. \u00a0(Of course, this would call Nephi’s assertion that it was about three hours into question . . .) \u00a0Maybe one of the things being taken away from them is time itself; that’s kind of interesting to think about.<\/p>\n Wouldn’t there have been darkness during the thunder, lightening, storms, and tempests? \u00a0So what does the writer mean to say that after these things ended there was darkness? \u00a0Does v20 explain this?<\/p>\n \u00a020 And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness; Is there a relationship between the vapor of darkness here and the mists of darkness in Lehi\/Nephi’s vision? \u00a0(See v22, where “mists” is used.)<\/p>\n What work is “who had not fallen” doing? \u00a0(Because isn’t it pretty obvious that the dead people aren’t going to feel the vapor of darkness?)<\/p>\n \u00a021 And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; Nor sure if I am being overly-literal here, but is the point that the darkness was a “vapor” (I’m thinking 100% humidity) mean that they couldn’t have any light? \u00a0Are we supposed to be reading this symbolically as well?<\/p>\n “There could be no light” kind of makes it sound as if day #1 of the creation has been undone. \u00a0What are the implications of that? \u00a0(I wonder if the point is that we are headed for a new creation.)<\/p>\n Some scholars note the “exceedingly dry” alongside the lack of reference to rain in the destructions to make the point that everything that happened seemed to be fire\/earth based and not water-based (except that one city that gets covered by the sea). \u00a0Interesting, but not sure what to do with that.<\/p>\n Brant Gardner points out that high concentrations of volcanic gases in the air might have made it impossible to ignite wood.<\/p>\n \u00a022 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land. V21-22 is super redundant; why do you think the author wanted to hammer the point home that absoposilutely no light was possible?<\/p>\n Should you be finding a symbolic or allegorical element to all of these acts of destruction?<\/p>\n \u00a023 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them. Is there a relationship between the three hours of tempest\/storms and three days of darkness?<\/p>\n Is the darkness related the plague of darkness (#9) before the Exodus?<\/p>\n How could they have known how long it was without light to measure the passage of days?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n This verse serves to shift the focus away from the natural phenomena and towards the effect that it had on the people. The transition from geological to human moves on the basis of sound. The earth had been making great noises (thunderings) and now the people themselves make great noises. Here we have \u201cmourning and howling and weeping,\u201d and \u201cgroanings.\u201d The earth visibly and audibly complains, and now the people echo that sentiment. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla.<\/strong><\/p>\n Are they right that their brethren would have been spared if they (the speakers, not the brethren) had repented? \u00a0Because this sort of sounds as if other parties were punished for their sins . . . is that what happened here? \u00a0If so, how do we reconcile that with the idea of personal responsibility?<\/p>\n Why is the focus in this verse on the city of Zarahemla and not somewhere else or the destruction in general? \u00a0Or is it just coincidental that Z. is mentioned here?<\/p>\n \u00a025 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why the reference to mothers (which is very unusual in the BoM here)?<\/p>\n Mothers\/daughters\/children is an odd grouping–what happened to their wives? \u00a0Why mention the daughters twice (since they would be included in the children as well)?<\/p>\n Again, is it true that these things would not have happened if they had repented? \u00a0On the one hand, they had been told that they would be destroyed if they didn’t repent. \u00a0On the other hand, the timing here–they aren’t just being destroyed. \u00a0These signs were timed to happen at the death of Jesus Christ. \u00a0So is the sign primarily about the death, or is it about their destruction for not repenting? \u00a0Another way to put this: \u00a0If they had repented? \u00a0Would these signs have still happened? \u00a0(It is weird to think that if they had repented then they would not have been given a sign.) \u00a0There seems to be some overlap in this story between the idea of a “sign” (which lets you know about something else, in this case that Jesus was born and then died) or a “punishment” (which is how the people are treating it here, but I am not sure if I am supposed to be trusting their interpretation of events).<\/p>\n Again, does this verse picture innocent parties being punished for other people’s sins? \u00a0Is that what happened? \u00a0If so, is that just? \u00a0Does that happen now?<\/p>\n Again, is the Moronihah coincidental, or is there some reason for singling out that city (and Z. in the last verse)? \u00a0(This passage reminds me of when a news reporter checks in from a variety of locations with “on the scene” reporting.)<\/p>\n See 10:12: \u00a0they are wrong in their assessment of events here. \u00a0(I think.)<\/p>\n CHAPTER 9<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And it came to pass that there was a voice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:<\/strong><\/p>\n I feel a tension between “all the inhabitants of the earth” and “all the face of this land,” but it is probably just an indication that I am reading “all . . . earth” as wrong. \u00a0(In other words, it doesn’t mean “earth” the way we would think of it. \u00a0Take note, universal flood people.)<\/p>\n I wonder if there is something to be made of the fact that first we had the earth making noise, then we had the people making noise, and now we have in this verse the heavens making noise.<\/p>\n There was not originally a chapter break here. \u00a0(That may mean that we should see the voice as a response to the lament in the last two verses of the last chapter. \u00a0Do you read it differently if you do that? \u00a0My thought is that the expression of a desire to repent is what triggers the voice from heaven–the word “repent” in the next verse seems to suggest that, but leading off with a “wo” is interesting.)<\/p>\n \u00a02 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen! OK, so the first time that you read this, don’t you expect a voice of comfort? \u00a0Because that’s what divine voices usually do, right? \u00a0They show up and say “fear not”? \u00a0We get just the opposite here. \u00a0I can’t think of any similar stories in the scriptures, which makes this one all the more surprising.<\/p>\n What effect does the repetition of “wo” have on the reader?<\/p>\n Should we contrast the devil’s happiness with the lament of the survivors at the end of the last chapter?<\/p>\n Does “whole earth” (note that “whole” wasn’t used in the previous verse) mean “whole earth”? \u00a0(It sounds like it would, but that is also a little weird since not everyone on the whole earth gets to hear this message.)<\/p>\n What kind of laughing is the devil doing: \u00a0happiness, revenge, sarcasm, victory, something else?<\/p>\n Note that this voice says “sons” but the complaint of the people at the end of the last chapter was “daughters” and then “children.” \u00a0Is that a significant shift?<\/p>\n Note that they are still “my people.”<\/p>\n So the laments at the end of the last chapter sounded as if the fallen fell because of the sins of those still living. \u00a0This verse makes it sound as if they fell because of their own sins. \u00a0What is going on here?<\/p>\n Are “iniquity” and “abomination” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n Thinking about v1-2, how would you describe Jesus’ attitude toward the dead and under what conditions might we want to model that attitude?<\/p>\n Robert D. Hales:<\/p>\n It is our sins that make the devil laugh, our sorrow that brings him counterfeit joy. Apr 2006 GC<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a03 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.<\/strong><\/p>\n Note that we are beginning a list of destruction. \u00a0Why do you think the voice chose to address this topic? \u00a0(My thought is that people would have had absolutely no way to know what had happened, and so there is a measure of mercy in giving them facts up front. \u00a0It is also a not-so-subtle reminder of the powers of heaven.)<\/p>\n Remember that Z. is the great center of Nephite civilization. \u00a0To begin by pointing out that it has been destroyed is to push a pin into whatever balloon of stability we thought we could create of human institutions (nations, banks, armies, social movements, whatever). \u00a0This verse is another way of saying, “I am more powerful than that thing that you thought was so powerful.”<\/p>\n \u00a04 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned. Note that we get the lament of people from Z. (mentioned in the verse before this) and M. (mentioned in the verse after this), but no lament from the people from the city Moroni. \u00a0Is that significant?<\/p>\n Is they type of destruction (that is, burning versus sinking versus covering [in the next verse]) significant?<\/p>\n \u00a05 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them. The “to hide . . .” line makes it sound as if the type of destruction is indeed significant–a “natural justice” kind of thing. \u00a0Is that true for the other cities? \u00a0If so, why wasn’t that made clear in those verses the way that it is made clear in this one?<\/p>\n The idea that M. was covered so the Lord couldn’t see their sins is, obviously, poetic. \u00a0What other parts of this speech should be read as poetry? \u00a0What does conceiving of the destruction of M. this way imply about the destructions in general?<\/p>\n The BoM doesn’t use “saints” very much–why does it do so here?<\/p>\n \u00a06 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;<\/strong><\/p>\n The absence of an explanation, along the lines of v5’s “to hide their iniquities,” feels pretty obvious here. \u00a0Why is there no explanation here? \u00a0Or should we be reading the explanation as coming for all of these cities in v7?<\/p>\n \u00a07 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the second time we get the idea that they were destroyed so the Lord wouldn’t have to look at their ugly faces. \u00a0Do you read this just as a metaphor of their inability to qualify to be in the presence of the Lord? \u00a0(Which would be kind of interesting, since it implies that simply being alive on the earth is, in a limited sense, being in the presence of the Lord.) \u00a0Or is there something else going on here?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that their physical destruction is an adequate punishment for killing the prophets and saints? \u00a0Is it? \u00a0(And I can’t believe that I am going to go here, but does this kinda sorta sound like the doctrine of blood atonement to you?)<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The theme of paralleled opposing destructions that was set in verses four and five is now repeated for a larger number of cities. The basic parallel is a city going down into water, and of a land coming up to bury a city. Both of these directional actions are unusual and unexpected. Water might rise up in flood, but we do not expect cities to go down into water. We might go dig down into earth to bury something, but the earth does not rise up to bury anything. The emphasis on these two unexpected \u201cdirections\u201d tells us that these examples are representative of a larger purpose. That larger purpose lies in the very incongruity of the directions. This is not \u201cnatural,\u201d and therefore it must come at the hand of an \u201cunnatural\u201d being \u2013 or from God. The message is that God is behind these destructions. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a08 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them. Why do you think they were given this laundry list of cities? \u00a0What effect it would it have had on them and what effect should it have on you?<\/p>\n Note that some of these cities we have never even heard of before.<\/p>\n “That the blood . . .” becomes a refrain in these verses; what effect does its repetition have on the reader? \u00a0(See also v9 and 11.)<\/p>\n \u00a09 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them. Does this verse imply that sin is quantifiable (“above all the wickedness . . .”)? \u00a0Is it? \u00a0How literally or hyperbolically do you read this? \u00a0(Remember that many ancient cities had slavery, forced prostitution, infanticide as socially acceptable, etc. \u00a0So to literally call this the most wicked means that our BoM writers have spared us some pretty gritty details.)<\/p>\n Note “because of their secret murders . . .” \u00a0Why would these things qualify as being the worst sins? \u00a0Especially the part about combinations?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that peace and government are supreme values? \u00a0(It seems to me that making people live under an oppressive government is a horrible sin, but maybe not in line with individual things like torture, rape, etc. \u00a0Unless destroying the govt automatically translated to an increase in those things . . .)<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that burning is a worse fate than being buried, etc.?<\/p>\n Is there poetic justice in the idea that they destroyed the government and so they were destroyed?<\/p>\n \u00a010 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations. \u00a011 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.<\/strong><\/p>\n What, if anything, is this verse saying about the presence of the righteous to preserve a wicked city? \u00a0(Kind of like when Abraham bargains over Sodom. \u00a0Or maybe that isn’t the point at all; maybe the point is that casting out the righteous was per se an indicator of their wickedness.)<\/p>\n I’m really struck by the repetition in this section–we’ve just heard almost verbatim this verse. \u00a0What effect does that have on the reader?<\/p>\n \u00a012 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. \u00a013 O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you? Again, at the end of the last chapter, these people acted as if innocents had died because of *their* sins. \u00a0But here we find out that the survivors are marginally more righteous. \u00a0So . . . they were wrong. \u00a0Why do you think their inaccurate words were included in the record? \u00a0Why do you think they thought that these really guilty people were innocent and thought that they were more wicked? \u00a0In other words, to what do you attribute their inversion of culpability?<\/p>\n Is it a universal principle that the righteous are spared?<\/p>\n Note that, despite the fact that they were marginally more righteous, they still needed to return and repent. \u00a0They weren’t that good.<\/p>\n Why do you think he is asking a question (instead of issuing a command) here?<\/p>\n There’s this weird thing happening here that the really wicked people die at the same time Christ dies. \u00a0That would seem to link the deaths, but that seems a little off.<\/p>\n The cynic asks: \u00a0If the people who had died had survived, don’t you think the physical catastrophes and voice from heaven would have led them to repent as well? \u00a0Why weren’t they given this same chance?<\/p>\n Does “all ye that were . . . than they” mean that every single survivor was more righteous than every single person who died, or does it mean that, at this moment, the speaker is only addressing the subset of survivors who were more righteous than those who died?<\/p>\n Notice the chain: \u00a0return, repent, be converted, be healed. \u00a0What do you make of this list? \u00a0What kind of healing is envisioned? \u00a0What is the difference between returning and repenting? \u00a0What does “be converted” mean and why is it item #3 on the list, when I’d think that it would need to be #1 in order to motivate the “returning”?<\/p>\n “Healed” strikes me as an unusual word to use in this context; what does it convey to you?<\/p>\n \u00a014 Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me. It seems that “coming unto me” is way too little to merit eternal life.<\/p>\n In the OT, the arm is usually a symbol for strength or power.<\/p>\n Why didn’t those who were killed in the destructions have an arm of mercy extended to them?<\/p>\n I think “coming” to Jesus is a metaphor. \u00a0It shows us moving toward him, perhaps on a journey. \u00a0What else can you learn from this metaphor?<\/p>\n \u00a015 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.<\/strong><\/p>\n The logical thing is for a speaker to introduce themselves before speaking. \u00a0What is accomplished by having the identity of the speaker withheld until this point?<\/p>\n Of all of the various names\/titles that could have been used (Lamb, Only Begotten, Savior, Redeemer, etc.), why do you think “Son of God” was used here?<\/p>\n Why is the first thing mentioned that he created the heavens and the earth? \u00a0(Is that related to the recent destructions? I’m thinking Bill Cosby: \u00a0“I brought you into this world and I can take you out and make another one just like you.”)<\/p>\n What does it mean to glorify your name? \u00a0In what ways did Christ do that?<\/p>\n Based on this verse, how would you describe Jesus?<\/p>\n Why didn’t Jesus describe himself in v2 (as he does here)?<\/p>\n What is “the beginning”? \u00a0Does it mean the creation of the earth? \u00a0Pre-mortal life? \u00a0What? \u00a0Why would it have been important for these people to know that about Jesus at this point?<\/p>\n What does it mean to be “in” the Father and vice versa? \u00a0Is this related to the “glorifying” of a name?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner points out that this material would have been particularly important to the Nephites, who need to begin to understand how the Messiah relates to God. \u00a0They would likely not have had this knowledge before this point (hence the reference [before it was corrected] to Mary as the mother of God, etc., in the BoM.)<\/p>\n \u00a016 I came unto my own, and my own received me not.\u00a0<\/strong>And the scriptures concerning my coming are fulfilled.<\/strong><\/p>\n Knowing that many of “his own” did receive them (that is, every faithful disciple), how do you understand the first sentence of this verse?<\/p>\n Does “the scriptures” include the words of Samuel the Lamanite?<\/p>\n Is there a warning for us in this verse?<\/p>\n In what sense were the people he came to “his own”?<\/p>\n \u00a017 And as many as have received me, to them have I given to become the sons of God; and even so will I to as many as shall believe on my name, for behold, by me redemption cometh, and in me is the law of Moses fulfilled. Note “become.” \u00a0Usually we think of being children of God as something that we automatically are. \u00a0What is going on in this verse?<\/p>\n Is there a relationship here between redemption coming and the law being fulfilled?<\/p>\n Does this verse posit that receiving Christ and believing on his name are the same thing? \u00a0(Note the “even so;” unless the requirements for the two groups are different, then these have to be the same thing.)<\/p>\n Is believing on his name related to Jesus glorifying the name of the Father?<\/p>\n Why is redemption a good metaphor for what Jesus does for us?<\/p>\n What are the implications of saying that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus? \u00a0(How) is that related to the idea of the scriptures being fulfilled at the end of the last verse?<\/p>\n \u00a018 I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Saying “I am the light” takes on extra punch when you remember the experience of darkness that these people are having!<\/p>\n Obviously, “alpha and omega” is a bit of translational license, since these people did not speak Greek. \u00a0(But I presume that they had some other phrase that signified “from beginning to end and everything in between” like “alpha and omega” does, and he does explain it by saying “the beginning and the end.”)<\/p>\n What, if anything, does the presence of the phrase “alpha and omega” imply about how Joseph Smith translated the BoM?<\/p>\n This article<\/a> looks in detail at how Jesus identifies himself in these verses.<\/p>\n Grant Hardy points out that the reference to “the end” may have been especially poignant given that these people might have assumed that they were experiencing the end of the world.<\/p>\n 19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. Many BoM prophets taught that the purpose of the law of Moses was to teach about the atonement before it happened. \u00a0Now that it has happened, there is no point in performing these ordinances.<\/p>\n Were these people performing temple rituals? \u00a0(I ask because they were pretty wicked. \u00a0Maybe Jesus is just speaking generally here.)<\/p>\n Is the reference to “the end” in v18 related to Jesus’ explanation of the end of animal sacrifices in this verse?<\/p>\n \u00a020 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. So there are still sacrifices–they just aren’t animal sacrifices. \u00a0What are the similarities and differences between animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit?\u00a0If the purpose of the law of Moses was to teach about the atonement, then what is the purpose of these sacrifices? \u00a0My thought: \u00a0They are a sacrifice of human will and desire and attitude.<\/p>\n Note “sacrifices and burnt offerings” in the last verse and “broken heart and contrite spirit” in this verse. \u00a0Is sacrifice : broken heart : : burnt offerings : contrite spirit?<\/p>\n Webster 1828 contrite: \u00a0“Literally, worn or bruised.”<\/p>\n What is a broken heart? \u00a0What is a contrite spirit? \u00a0What does it mean to offer these up? \u00a0Why would it be a sacrifice to offer them up?<\/p>\n “Broken heart and contrite spirit” are mentioned in Psalm 51:17. \u00a0Modern translations usually go for something like “penitent heart” or “repentant spirit” or something. \u00a0The more fanciful ones use “shattered pride;” I think the image is correct even if it isn’t literal.<\/p>\n If you read backwards, you might conclude that the purpose of the animal sacrifices was to represent\/teach about\/prepare people for\/symbolize a broken heart and a contrite spirit. \u00a0How did it do this? \u00a0What might we learn from that that is relevant to how we think about our ordinances today?<\/p>\n What does it mean to baptize with fire? \u00a0Is it a different thing from the Holy Ghost? \u00a0(Note the phrasing of this verse.)<\/p>\n Does this mean that the baptism with fire happens by this voice, or does it mean that it happens through intermediaries?<\/p>\n That shout-out to the Lamanites is pretty powerful, given the historical enmity between them and the Nephites.<\/p>\n Why was “at the time of their conversion” included in this verse? \u00a0(It opens the door for them to lose their faith.)<\/p>\n How is it possible to be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost and not to know it? \u00a0What should we learn from this verse? \u00a0What does it teach us about Nephite (well, technically, Lamanite) religion? \u00a0Does something similar happen today?<\/p>\n \u00a021 Behold, I have come unto the world to bring redemption unto the world, to save the world from sin.<\/strong><\/p>\n Does “to save the world from sin” explain what “redemption” is?<\/p>\n Does “I have come into the world” refer to his mortal ministry, or to this visit to the Nephites, or what?<\/p>\n Do you normally think of redemption as something that you can “bring”? \u00a0(It sounds like Jesus tucked it into a shopping bag or something.)<\/p>\n Why does he say “to save the world from sin” instead of “to save penitent people” or something? \u00a0(In other words, I think this phrasing could open up ground to continue the apostate teaching we see more than once in the BoM that people can be saved *in* their sins. \u00a0Although I suppose the previous verses about broken heart and contrite spirit should preclude that [mis] reading.)<\/p>\n 22 Therefore, whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child, him will I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God. Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved. What does “as a little child” mean? \u00a0That is, what characteristics of young children are in view here? \u00a0Remember that no ancient society that we know of thought of young children as the pure, joyful, etc. little creatures that we do–they either thought of them as miniature adults or as wicked people who needed the devil beaten out of them.<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that repenting and coming to Jesus as a child are two separate things? \u00a0(Or just two ways of saying the same thing?)<\/p>\n I like the way that Jesus’ life is sandwiched by references to our ability to repent.<\/p>\n What exactly is the kingdom of God?<\/p>\n Jesus describes his life as if it were almost a garment that could be laid aside and then taken up again. \u00a0What do you learn from this image?<\/p>\n What effect would “ends of the earth” have had on this audience?<\/p>\n General thought: \u00a0So this is quite a different introduction to Jesus than the Old World people get. \u00a0What can you learn from comparing them?<\/p>\n Another general thought: \u00a0Notice what Jesus chose to mention and the order that it was presented in (wos, his identity, fate of wicked, law of sacrifices done away, what they should do now, etc.–and there are probably other ways to parse this and other items to include). \u00a0How should this inform your presentation of the gospel to others?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 10<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And now behold, it came to pass that all the people of the land did hear these sayings, and did witness of it. And after these sayings there was silence in the land for the space of many hours;<\/strong><\/p>\n Note that there was originally no chapter break here, so what is happening is the immediate result of what Jesus said at the end of the last chapter.<\/p>\n What does it mean to witness of something in this context?<\/p>\n Why mention the silence? \u00a0What caused it? \u00a0What are we supposed to learn from it? \u00a0(See v2 for more on this.) \u00a0Note particularly the juxtaposition of “sayings” and “silence.”<\/p>\n Note the “behold”–that means that the author is working hard to call our attention to something.<\/p>\n \u00a02 For so great was the astonishment of the people that they did cease lamenting and howling for the loss of their kindred which had been slain; therefore there was silence in all the land for the space of many hours. Is astonishment the reaction that you would have expected? \u00a0(Shouldn’t they have been rejoicing or something?)<\/p>\n Note that, unlike the destructions, there is not a specific time frame for the silence given here.<\/p>\n 3 And it came to pass that there came a voice again unto the people, and all the people did hear, and did witness of it, saying:<\/strong><\/p>\n Does this mean that the voice deliberately took a break? \u00a0If so, why? \u00a0Should we be making some distinction between the kinds of things said in the first speech and what is said in the second speech? \u00a0(Crazy speculation alert: what if the first speech was pre-resurrection and the second was post?)<\/p>\n Notice that this time, the voice is introduced with the idea that the people are witnesses of it. \u00a0But that wasn’t the case last time. \u00a0Why the difference?<\/p>\n \u00a04 O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. What’s the point of reminding them of their lineage? \u00a0Is there any relation to the fact that, the first time they heard the voice, they were told of the voice’s lineage (“Son of God,” etc.)?<\/p>\n Last time, the voice began with wos. \u00a0This time, it begins with a comforting message of gathering. \u00a0To what do you attribute the change? \u00a0(Seriously, this is like an entirely different Jesus.)<\/p>\n Notice that Jesus is comparing himself to a mother hen in this passage. \u00a0Why is a mother hen a good image for our relationship with Jesus?<\/p>\n In the last speech, the voice said that he was the creator of heaven and earth. This time, he compares himself to a chicken. \u00a0(I know that sounds flippant; I didn’t mean it to. \u00a0It is just what the text does.) \u00a0How do you explain this shift?<\/p>\n What kind of nourishment does Jesus provide?<\/p>\n The hen image is used frequently in scriptures; usually, the idea is the protection (from weather or predators) that the wings can provide. \u00a0Here, particular mention is made of the nourishing aspect of the relationship.<\/p>\n Remember that in the last chapter, we were told to become as little children. \u00a0Here, that imagery is, in a sense, continued.<\/p>\n Mae Blanch:<\/p>\n The image of the hen calling after her chickens to come to the shelter and safety of her wings portrays the love of the Savior, his desire to nourish his children, to keep them safe from their common enemy, Satan, to shelter them from the storms of life, to give them the opportunity to grow and fulfill the promise of their nature.\u00a0The image suggests other ideas as well. The chickens have strayed away from the hen. They have been lured from safety by their desire for adventure or rebellion, out into the tempting world where danger lurks beside every step. The hen calls to her chickens, but they must come of their own volition. They are not forced under her wings; they are invited, even urged, but they must exercise their own agency. In using this metaphor, the Lord designates his call to those of the fallen cities, who are descendants of Jacob, and to those of the house of Israel, who live at Jerusalem, establishing the right of the Savior to issue the call to repentance\u2014they are his people who owe him obedience. And his use of the three verbs: \u201chow oft have I gathered you; . . . how oft would I have gathered you; . . . how oft will I gather you\u201d emphasizes his timeless call to repentance\u2014past, present, and future. The Savior\u2019s love is always there. His arms are always extended in mercy as long as there is any hope for his children to return to him. The true nature of repentance is not a test, not an indulgence, but a gift of love. It is one that we must take\u2014it cannot be forced upon us. \u00a0Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a05 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. The “again” makes the repetition explicit. \u00a0Why was this material repeated?<\/p>\n “Who have fallen” was used in the last chapter to refer to those who had died. \u00a0Is it used the same way here? \u00a0(That is, is the audience for this speech the dead or the living? Does “whom I have spared” in the next verse imply anything?)<\/p>\n Is the Jrsm reference to the Old World or New World city?<\/p>\n Is Jesus’ goal here to inspire regret? \u00a0Or what?<\/p>\n \u00a06 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart. What does “full purpose of heart” mean? \u00a0How can you know if you have it?<\/p>\n Are “repent” and “return” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n I think there is a lot to be said about Jesus using an extremely feminized, maternal, nurturing, caretaking type image for himself. \u00a0Down with social constructions of gender!<\/p>\n Note the repetition in v4, 5, and 6, but note the tense changes: \u00a0v4 is the past, v5 is the contra-factual past, and v6 is the future.<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The New World would have been familiar with turkeys, but not chickens. Nevertheless, the imagery would be easily transferred. We might therefore expect that what these New World people heard was their word for turkeys, and Joseph Smith simply translated\u00a0hen<\/em>\u00a0on the basis of the New Testament passages. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 7 But if not, O house of Israel, the places of your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers. Haven’t their dwelling places *already* become desolate? \u00a0So what then would this verse mean?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that their places will become un-desolate in order to fulfill the covenant to their fathers? \u00a0If so, what exactly does that mean?<\/p>\n This seems like an unfinished discourse; I think the first time that you read it, you expect the voice from heaven to continue in the next verse, but it doesn’t. \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n 8 And now it came to pass that after the people had heard these words, behold, they began to weep and howl again because of the loss of their kindred and friends.<\/strong><\/p>\n Thinking about the big structure: \u00a0Jesus spoke once, then stopped. \u00a0The people responded to that by stopping their mourning and being astonished. \u00a0Jesus spoke again, in v4-7. \u00a0And then, in this verse, the people resume their mourning. \u00a0It almost seems as if Jesus was not happy with their reaction of mourning-stopped-amazement-engaged, and came back to tell them stuff that would make them mourn again. \u00a0That doesn’t sound quite right to me, but that’s what it reads like. \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n 9 And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away. What does the first sentence mean? \u00a0(I kind of think it implies that the voice continued to speak to them over the three days.)<\/p>\n Remember that the setting here is that Jesus is speaking to them at the time that his body is in the tomb. \u00a0How does that impact your interpretation of what is happening here?<\/p>\n Why did we need to know that this happened in the morning? \u00a0(Is the point to tie the end of darkness to the resurrection?)<\/p>\n I guess I hadn’t realized that the earth was trembling and rocks rending this whole time until I read this; I thought the last chapter implied that the physical stuff had stopped when the darkness started.<\/p>\n So was all of this noise happening during the silence between the two speeches? (If so, I would visualize the scene kind of differently. \u00a0For one thing, the silence isn’t silence; it is the absence of human voices. \u00a0For another thing, Jesus is speaking over these ‘natural’ sounds.)<\/p>\n 10 And the earth did cleave together again, that it stood; and the mourning, and the weeping, and the wailing of the people who were spared alive did cease; and their mourning was turned into joy, and their lamentations into the praise and thanksgiving unto the Lord Jesus Christ, their Redeemer. What does the cleaving mean? \u00a0(What does “that it stood” mean?) \u00a0Does it have to do with the resurrection? \u00a0Is it symbolic or literal? \u00a0(If you wanted to be really weird, you could take the earth as a symbol for Jesus–the cleaving together would suggest the re-joining of his body and spirit.)<\/p>\n This verse makes it sound as if their mourning wasn’t really mourning (otherwise, I think it would have continued) but more like fear that these natural catastrophic events would spell their own death. \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n It seems that the mourning should have been turned to joy when Jesus spoke with them, not when the earthquake stopped. \u00a0Why does it happen this way instead?<\/p>\n Why does it say “darkness dispersed” as opposed to “light shined”? \u00a0(If it was a volcano, this might literally be describing the end of the ash cloud. \u00a0But that still doesn’t explain how it would work symbolically, where we need to grapple with the idea that the light really was there all along, but we just couldn’t perceive it because of the ash. \u00a0How does that work when they have been listening to Jesus speak directly to them–isn’t that a light in the darkness, especially when he says “I am the light”?)<\/p>\n 11 And thus far were the scriptures fulfilled which had been spoken by the prophets. To what is this referring? \u00a0(Sam?)<\/p>\n Why was this verse included in the record?<\/p>\n I presume that this is an editorial insertion, but it seems like a weird one. \u00a0You have two speeches directly from Jesus to a traumatized people, and your lede is “scripture fulfilled”?<\/p>\n 12 And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared\u2014 Don’t we already know that the more righteous part were saved?<\/p>\n How do we reconcile this verse’s idea of people who received the prophets with what Jesus said about the need of the people to repent and be converted? \u00a0(In other words, it almost seems like our editor is making the people out to be morally superior to the way that Jesus described them.)<\/p>\n Thinking about how the principle in this verse might apply today: \u00a0what does receiving the prophets spare us from?<\/p>\n 13 And they were spared and were not sunk and buried up in the earth; and they were not drowned in the depths of the sea; and they were not burned by fire, neither were they fallen upon and crushed to death; and they were not carried away in the whirlwind; neither were they overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness. I can totally understand the desire to write an editorial summary, but, really, you think we missed this part of the story? \u00a0Why was this included? \u00a0(I suspect there is a reason and I further suspect that it is related to the “let the reader understand” statement in the next verse. \u00a0But I am not entirely sure what it means.)<\/p>\n 14 And now, whoso readeth, let him understand; he that hath the scriptures, let him search them, and see and behold if all these deaths and destructions by fire, and by smoke, and by tempests, and by whirlwinds, and by the opening of the earth to receive them, and all these things are not unto the fulfilling of the prophecies of many of the holy prophets. Shout-outs to the reader are most unusual. \u00a0What effect does this one have on the reader? \u00a0Why is it here?<\/p>\n Note the similarity to Mark 13:14: \u00a0“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Jud\u00e6a flee to the mountains.” \u00a0What else do these passages have in common.<\/p>\n Note how this verse takes a story about Other People that happened Somewhere Else at Another Time and transfers it into something immediately accessible and relevant to the reader.<\/p>\n Notice how the editor is giving you a homework assignment in this verse; you haven’t just been watching the History Channel; you’ve been reading something that is supposed to directly impact your life.<\/p>\n Maybe I am just reading this wrong, but it seems a little weird to me that Mormon (or whoever’s) take home for us from the last few chapters is “See! \u00a0 The scriptures WERE fulfilled!” instead of “Jesus died; repent!” or something. \u00a0Why do you think Mormon chose to emphasize the scripture-fulfillment angle of this story instead of some other angle?<\/p>\n 15 Behold, I say unto you, Yea, many have testified of these things at the coming of Christ, and were slain because they testified of these things. Note again the “I” and the “you.” \u00a0The writer is working really hard here to draw the audience into the story.<\/p>\n There is a bit of poetic justice in that prophets were slain for preaching about the coming of Christ and people who didn’t believe the prophets were slain at the coming of Christ.<\/p>\n Is this just an “I told you so!” verse, or is there more going on here? \u00a0(Maybe a warning of what we should expect as we proclaim the truth?)<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The important information that Mormon sees is that the coming of the Messiah is associated with destruction. \u00a0Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . and I think he’s right, but it sure sounds weird when you put it that way! \u00a0Shouldn’t the coming of the Messiah have been associated with unicorns and rainbows? \u00a0You know, good stuff?<\/p>\n 16 Yea, the prophet Zenos did testify of these things, and also Zenock spake concerning these things, because they testified particularly concerning us, who are the remnant of their seed. I think there is something delicious about the fact that this OT prophet Zenos is unknown to us in the OT and only barely known from the BoM. \u00a0And yet our writer here is writing about him as if we knew him better than Isaiah. \u00a0What effect does all of this have on the reader? \u00a0(I suppose you could make the case that we were supposed to get all of this from the allegory of the olive tree, but . . .)<\/p>\n 17 Behold, our father Jacob also testified concerning a remnant of the seed of Joseph. And behold, are not we a remnant of the seed of Joseph? And these things which testify of us, are they not written upon the plates of brass which our father Lehi brought out of Jerusalem? Why rhetorical questions here? \u00a0What effect do they have on the reader?<\/p>\n 18 And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them\u2014 Note the unusual “I” and “you” again.<\/p>\n If they had great favors, why was the first thing that Jesus said unto them “wo”?<\/p>\n What does the word “poured” suggest to you about blessings?<\/p>\n Note that this verse serves as a preview of coming attractions. \u00a0We don’t always get one of those; why do we get one here?<\/p>\n Does “truly manifest” mean that the voice was different than a true manifestation? \u00a0(Does the next verse explain this?)<\/p>\n If we read 10:11-18 as an editorial insertion from Mormon, note that what he is emphasizing in the advent of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy. \u00a0On the one hand, this seems logical. \u00a0On the other hand, at the Second Coming, do you think there are going to be more people thinking about the fact that Jesus is there or more people thinking about the fact that prophecies have been fulfilled?<\/p>\n 19 Showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings.<\/strong><\/p>\n Something about the reference to “body” in this verse calls attention to the fact that the last two manifestations were a voice.<\/p>\n What does “ministering” mean?<\/p>\n Some people find a timing conflict in the timing of the appearance; Brant Gardner explores it all here<\/a>.<\/p>\n CHAPTER 11<\/strong><\/p>\n Jesus Christ did show himself unto the people of Nephi, as the multitude were gathered together in the land Bountiful, and did minister unto them; and on this wise did he show himself unto them.<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.<\/strong> Is the temple setting significant? (Were they there to worship? Animal sacrifices? \u00a0Or just because it was the public gathering place?)<\/p>\n Was there any destruction in Bountiful? \u00a0(I don’t think it was mentioned . . .) \u00a0Note that there are “changes” here, but I wonder if that is the same thing.<\/p>\n Grant Hardy points out that there is no time frame given here. \u00a0(Further support for my theory that Jesus’ life was not necessarily 33 years.) \u00a0I think most LDS readers assume that this visit is pretty much the day after the destructions ended, but there is really no evidence for that.<\/p>\n Something about that picture of them showing each other the changes interests me . . .<\/p>\n Are the physical changes meant to mirror the change from the law of Moses to the gospel? \u00a0If so, what might we learn from this?<\/p>\n This article<\/a> suggests that the phrase “great and marvelous change” refers to the effects of the atonement, not to the physical changes. \u00a0I think it would be most likely to be both, and that that is a brilliant bit of Symbolism for Dummies to make the point that the effects of the atonement are as huge as the natural cataclysms that they have experienced. \u00a0(Of course, if I were in charge of the world and were going to make that parallel, I’d make the changes a touch \u00a0more positive and less deadly–wouldn’t that better reflect the meaning of the atonement?) \u00a0If the “change” does refer to the atonement, then what would they have been doing to “show one another” it? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a0probably animal sacrifices, now that they had a better understanding of what they could mean?)<\/p>\n 2 And they were also conversing about this Jesus Christ, of whom the sign had been given concerning his death.<\/strong> What work is “this” doing in this sentence?<\/p>\n Shouldn’t “of whom . . . death” be obvious to anyone who has been paying the teenist bit of attention? \u00a0So why then is it mentioned?<\/p>\n 3 And it came to pass that while they were thus conversing one with another, they heard a voice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a small voice it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn.<\/strong> There’s that crazy-making “as if” again. \u00a0Does that mean that the voice did not come out of heaven? \u00a0(Compare v5. \u00a0Does that mean something has changed, or was the “as if” just boilerplate?)<\/p>\n The set-up makes it seem significant that they hear the voice while they are talking to each other about Jesus. \u00a0What are we supposed to learn from this?<\/p>\n Why mention the casting about of the eyes? \u00a0(Note that there is a lot more stage direction and detail in this verse than we usually get in the BoM. \u00a0It make this verse easier to visualize and, I think, adds to its impression of importance by making the events much more concrete in the eyes of the reader.)<\/p>\n Why didn’t they understand the voice? \u00a0Does that mean that this voice differed from the voice in the last two chapters? \u00a0(Because presumably they were able to understand that voice, right?)<\/p>\n Were they expecting harsh or loud, after the last few chapters?<\/p>\n Again, did the voice in the last chapters not pierce them to the center? \u00a0If not, why not?<\/p>\n Does “that did hear” imply that there were some people there who didn’t hear this voice? (Cf. the previous two voices, where we are told that everyone heard it.)<\/p>\n Is the piercing here related to the fact that Jesus was pierced? \u00a0(Note that his wounds, including the one in his side, are about to take center stage.)<\/p>\n Is it significant that pretty much as soon as the earth stops quaking, they start quaking? \u00a0(Seriously, I think you could read the changes in the earth as a template for the internal changes that should happen: \u00a0we have fire to mirror the baptism by fire, we have rent rocks to mirror the broken heart, we have the burning heart like unto the burning cities, etc.)<\/p>\n 4 And it came to pass that again they heard the voice, and they understood it not.<\/strong> 5 And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.<\/strong> Echoes of Samuel not recognizing the voice of the Lord on the first few tries here?<\/p>\n What does it mean to “open your ears”? \u00a0Presumably, that aids in their understanding, but what exactly does it mean? \u00a0I’m having a hard time escaping the image of them mentally tuning a radio dial here. \u00a0(I bet my kids don’t even know what a radio dial is.)<\/p>\n 6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:<\/strong><\/p>\n Why do they have a harder time understanding this voice than they did the one in the last chapter? \u00a0(Does it have anything to do with it being the Father and not the Son?)<\/p>\n I think most people struggle with being able to identify what is and what is not inspiration. \u00a0Is there anything that you see in this passage that might help you in that struggle?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner ties the three hours and three days to the 3x voice here.<\/p>\n 7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name\u2014hear ye him.<\/strong> How does this compare with the other times that the Father introduces the Son in scripture?<\/p>\n Why doesn’t the Father introduce himself here?<\/p>\n Are “beloved” and “well pleased” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n How does the intro that the Father gives the Son compare with the intro that the Son gave himself in the previous chapter? \u00a0Are the differences (in content, or in form of having the Father introduce the Son instead of the Son introduce himself) due to the fact that the Son has been resurrected in the interim?<\/p>\n Why do you think these particular three descriptions were chosen?<\/p>\n Note that commands directly from the Father (“hear ye him”) are exceedingly rare in the scriptures.<\/p>\n 8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.<\/strong> Why are we told what he is wearing?<\/p>\n Ha! \u00a0I didn’t like the fact that “Man” was capitalized in this verse and lo and behold Skousen points out that it was not originally capitalized! \u00a0I called that one!<\/p>\n Note that there is an awful lot of attention paid to what the eyes of the crowd are focused on in this story. \u00a0Why?<\/p>\n Note that the changes in the landscape were an appropriate topic of conversation for them, but this is not.<\/p>\n Why on earth would they think that an angel had appeared to them when a voice from heaven just told them that it would be the Son? \u00a0(This is really bizarre.)<\/p>\n Note that their understanding wasn’t compete (they thought he was an angel!) but rather line upon line. \u00a0And note how gently and kindly the Lord is working with them to improve their understanding.<\/p>\n Would it be correct to think that their understanding was required before they could see Jesus?<\/p>\n Is this silence related to their silence after Jesus spoke to them before?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n Christ descends dressed in white. When the modern reader sees this passage we immediately understand that the clothing is symbolic of the purity of the risen Lord. There would have been a different cultural assumption for a people who lived in Mesoamerica. As in Asia, the Mesoamerican association of white was with death. Thus one descending in white would be declaring that this was one who was, or had, died. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:<\/strong> Is the stretching forth of the hand ritually significant?<\/p>\n 10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>This is just like Mormon’s commentary in the last chapter–the emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy\/scripture. \u00a0Why was this theme emphasized so heavily?<\/strong><\/p>\n 11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.<\/strong> Why is a bitter cup a good metaphor for performing the atonement?<\/p>\n What should we learn from the fact that the Father would give his beloved son a bitter cup?<\/p>\n In any other context, we might assume unkind feelings re the idea of introducing yourself re a bitter cup someone else gave you. \u00a0Clearly, that isn’t the case here–so why is that language used?<\/p>\n Why would taking on sins glorify the father?<\/p>\n Why is it even possible for one person to take another person’s sins on them? \u00a0(Seriously.)<\/p>\n Often in the scriptures, “suffered” means “allowed,” but that doesn’t seem to be the meaning here.<\/p>\n What does “from the beginning” do here? \u00a0(It makes it sound as if the suffering wasn’t limited to the atonement but went all the way back to the creation, but that doesn’t sound quite right.)<\/p>\n 12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.<\/strong> What emotion is expressed by falling to the earth?<\/p>\n Had they forgotten those prophecies until this minute?<\/p>\n It seems that they are reacting more to the fact that this event fulfills prophecy than they are reacting to the event itself. \u00a0What might we learn from that?<\/p>\n 13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:<\/strong> 14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.<\/strong> Does this verse imply that physical experiences can lead to knowledge in a way that the voice of the Father and the witness of the eyes and ears alone could not?<\/p>\n After 2000 years, we are used to this, but there is something deeply weird about a god permitting people to feel his wounds. \u00a0Deeply, deeply weird.<\/p>\n Why would feeling his wounds help them “know” that he was the God of Israel? \u00a0Is there anything in that idea that is relevant to us today?<\/p>\n Notice God of Israel, God of whole earth, slain for the sins of the world. \u00a0What do you learn from the pairing of those three items.<\/p>\n 15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.<\/strong> Notice see, feel, know, bear record. \u00a0What might we learn from this?<\/p>\n “Thrust” is a pretty strong, violent word. \u00a0(Webster 1828 thrust: \u00a0“To push or drive with force”) \u00a0Does it have that connotation here and, if so, why?<\/p>\n I sense that there is a huge lesson about embodiment and physicality here. \u00a0Also something about the fact that the real way that they identified Jesus was by his wounds (not his power to work miracles or his preaching or whatever). \u00a0And the fact that they didn’t know or bear record until they felt his wounds–not after the voice of the Father, not after seeing Jesus descend from heaven, not after hearing him speak.<\/p>\n General question: \u00a0In the New Testament, touching Jesus’ wounds is what “doubting” Thomas does. \u00a0We are supposed to view that incident, I think, as showing faith inferior to someone who would believe without having touched his wounds. \u00a0But in the New World, Jesus makes this offer to the people to touch them, and the execution of it feels almost ritualized and ordinance-like. \u00a0(I don’t think there is any indication that their faith was weak. \u00a0Or are we just supposed to import that idea from what we know of the NT?) \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The mathematics of this episode indicate that \u201cuntil they had all gone forth,\u201d is either hyperbole or we are dealing with a longer period of time than a single day. If each person were to spend a minute with the Lord, only 720 people could come to the Lord in 12 hours of daylight. Obviously cutting the amount of time spent would decrease the amount of time required, but when\u00a0\u00a0we consider that in addition to this event we have various sermons and have no indication of the ending of a session with the Lord until the end of our chapter 18, then we appear to have more events than will fit into a day. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 16 And when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one\u00a0<\/strong>accord, saying:<\/strong><\/p>\n 17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.<\/strong> Is this the reaction that you would have expected?<\/p>\n Is there a relationship between touching the wounds on his feet and falling at his feet?<\/p>\n Did their physical experience lead them to belief? \u00a0(If so, is that idea problematic?)<\/p>\n If it is true that they increased in faith\/testimony when they felt Jesus’ wounds (and that’s why they worship here and not verses earlier), then that implies that neither the destructions, nor Jesus’ voice, not the Fathers’ introduction had the same effect on them as feeling Jesus’ wounds. \u00a0What might we learn from this?<\/p>\n Note that they are blessing God’s name here. \u00a0Is this related to the idea Jesus articulated of his suffering resulting in the glorification of his Father’s name?<\/p>\n 18 And it came to pass that he spake unto Nephi (for Nephi was among the multitude) and he commanded him that he should come forth.<\/strong> Why do we get the aside that Nephi was among the multitude? \u00a0Wasn’t that to be assumed?<\/p>\n 19 And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>Interesting that this is Nephi’s account, but he appears to be writing about himself in the third person.<\/strong><\/p>\n 20 And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him.<\/strong> Notice the slow pacing and detail of this verse and the ones before it. \u00a0Why do we get this level of detail?<\/p>\n 21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.<\/strong> Why is this the first thing that happens after they feel his wounds? \u00a0(How) does it relate to their feeling of his wounds?<\/p>\n Was the power to baptize transmitted via this sentence, or is there a laying on of hands here that we don’t hear about (and given the precise detail of the last few verses, why then would we lack the detail here)?<\/p>\n Are you surprised that this verse wasn’t\u00a0preceded\u00a0by a discussion about baptism? \u00a0(It seems a little abrupt.)<\/p>\n Wouldn’t Nephi have already had the power to baptize? \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n Is “when I am again ascended” significant? \u00a0That is, does Nephi not get this power to later? \u00a0If not, why not?<\/p>\n 22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.<\/strong> Why aren’t the others named here?<\/p>\n Note that the Lord seems particularly concerned that they not dispute about baptism. \u00a0Why might this be? \u00a0Why don’t we see something similar in the NT? \u00a0(Where the texts, at least as we have them, have sufficient ambiguity re the necessity of and mode of baptism that the disputes have not, as of this writing, yet died down.)<\/p>\n Note that the directions-for-avoiding-dispute aren’t given to Nephi (or: \u00a0just to Nephi). \u00a0Why might this be significant?<\/p>\n 23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them\u2014Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.<\/strong> “Through your words” sounds a little weird to me–why do you think it was phrased this way?<\/p>\n What role does “desire” play in this verse? \u00a0(That was a huge word earlier in the BoM, but seems to have fallen out of favor in recent centuries.)<\/p>\n Why was it important for them to stand in the water?<\/p>\n 24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>Why do we call someone by name when we baptize them? \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.<\/strong> Compare v23 with v25. \u00a0Why are we baptized by the authority of only one member of the Godhead but in the name of all three members?<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n